Master’s level accreditation in health services psychology: A primer to the special section with commentary.

Abstract

This introduction to the special section on accreditation of master's programs in health service psychology (HSP) describes the driving forces, within and beyond the discipline of psychology, that have contributed to recent developments pertaining to accreditation of HSP master's programs. Projected workforce needs and accreditation pathways are overviewed before summarizing accreditation requirements that have been recommended by a recent American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Educational Affairs task force. As APA moves forward with accreditation of master's programs in HSP there are several key areas requiring concerted effort: (1) addressing the risk of further constriction of diversity in the training-to-doctoral workforce pipeline, (2) defining the scope of practice at the master's level, and (3) articulating the additional value of the doctoral degree. A data driven rubric for defining and distinguishing HSP competences according to level of practice is proposed. Taking a rigorous and defensible, evidence-based, approach to defining the scope of practice in psychology at the master's level elevates the profile of the entire discipline and demonstrates our collective commitment to quality in the service of the public. Public Significance StatementThis article provides an introduction to a special section in this issue that is focused on the forthcoming accreditation of master's health service psychology programs. As the workforce grows, careful attention to curation of a diverse workforce at both the master's and doctoral levels is necessary. Further, decisions that define the scope of practice appropriate to the master's level and distinguishing master's from doctoral level competencies in health service psychology should be based on empirical evidence. An evidence-based rubric is proposed to facilitate that process.

Profession-wide competencies: Formative assessments of doctoral trainees.

“…Empirical work has supported theory; item response theory (IRT) analyses identify variable difficulty in the attainment of specific competencies (Price et al, 2017). Simple visual inspection of competency difficulty values reveals a larger number of relatively less difficult specific competencies load into the domain of foundational competency rather than the functional competency domain (Callahan, 2019). While Competency is the summative goal of training, intermittent evaluations of specific competencies creates a valuable formative feedback mechanism to promote continuous quality improvement strategies at the trainee, or even program, level.…”

The enhanced examination for professional practice in psychology: A viable approach?

“…For example, a known groups design could be used to examine whether there are differential pass rates among those holding unrelated doctoral degrees (e.g., engineering), related subdoctoral degrees (e.g., master’s degree in health service psychology), and doctoral degrees in health service psychology. Previous research underscores the likelihood of discernible exam performance differences (e.g., master’s vs. doctoral levels; DeMers, 2009) and may provide important information to jurisdictions in determining the appropriate scope of practice for doctoral level health service psychology, particularly in light of forthcoming accreditation of master’s programs in health service psychology (Callahan, 2019).…”

Master’s-level psychological assessment competencies and training.

“…The primary points of divergence at the master’s level are around the actual testing (as opposed to assessment) competencies. It should be noted that this is a significant divergence from previous recommendations (e.g., Callahan, 2019) that focused on master’s-level clinicians learning the easier or more basic skills (like test administration) but not the complex skills related to diagnosis, conceptualization, and development of recommendations. So much time in doctoral programs, both in coursework and in supervised practice, is devoted to the appropriate selection, administration, and interpretation of individual measures, and doctoral-level HSP psychologists become quite expert at incorporating sophisticated psychological tests into comprehensive assessments.…”

“…As such, how the competencies are considered needs to be careful and deliberate, balancing the limitations of shorter training with the need for accuracy and utility of assessment services in the real world. Callahan (2019) noted, based on the difficulty to achieve certain competencies within HSP programs, a recommendation that psychologists trained at the master's level should be expected to gain competency at the independent level for several components of psychological assessment but not others. Specifically, she recommended that measurement and psychometrics, evaluation methods, and application of evaluation methods could be expected of the master's-level psychologist.…”